INTERNET-DRAFT                                             Erik Nordmark
June 1, 2004                                            Sun Microsystems
                                                                 Tony Li
                                                        Procket Networks

              Threats relating to IPv6 multihoming solutions


   Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet Draft expires December 1, 2004.


   This document lists security threats related to IPv6 multihoming.
   Multihoming can introduce new opportunities to redirect packets to
   different, unintended IP addresses.

   The intent is to look at how IPv6 multihoming solutions might make
   the Internet less secure than the current Internet, without studying
   any proposed solution but instead looking at threats that are
   inherent in the problem itself.  The threats in this document build
   upon the threats discovered and discussed as part of the Mobile IPv6

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                            [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004


      1.  INTRODUCTION.............................................    3
         1.1.  Assumptions.........................................    3

      2.  TERMINOLOGY..............................................    4

      3.  TODAY'S ASSUMPTIONS......................................    5
         3.1.  Application Assumptions.............................    5
         3.2.  Redirection Attacks Today...........................    6
         3.3.  Packet Injection Attacks Today......................    7
         3.4.  Flooding Attacks Today..............................    8

      4.  POTENTIAL NEW REDIRECTION ATTACKS........................    9
         4.1.  Cause Packets to be Sent to the Attacker............   10
            4.1.1.  Once Packets are Flowing.......................   10
            4.1.2.  Premeditated Redirection.......................   10
            4.1.3.  Using Replay Attacks...........................   11
         4.2.  Cause Packets to be Sent to a Black Hole............   12
         4.3.  Third Party Denial-of-Service Attacks...............   12
            4.3.1.  Basic Third Party DoS..........................   13
            4.3.2.  Third Party DoS with On-Path Help..............   14
         4.4.  Accepting Packets from Unknown Locators.............   15

      5.  GRANULARITY OF REDIRECTION...............................   16

      6.  MOVEMENT IMPLICATIONS?...................................   17

      7.  OTHER SECURITY CONCERNS..................................   18

      8.  PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS...................................   19

      9.  SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS..................................   19

      10.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.........................................   20

      11.  REFERENCES..............................................   20
         11.1.  Normative References...............................   20
         11.2.  Informative References.............................   20

      AUTHORS' ADDRESSES...........................................   22

      APPENDIX A: CHANGES SINCE PREVIOUS DRAFT.....................   22

      APPENDIX B: SOME SECURITY ANALYSIS...........................   23

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                            [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004


   The goal of the IPv6 multihoming work is to allow a site to take
   advantage of multiple attachments to the global Internet without
   having a specific entry for the site visible in the global routing
   table.  Specifically, a solution should allow hosts to use multiple
   attachments in parallel, or to switch between these attachment points
   dynamically in the case of failures, without an impact on the upper
   layer protocols.

   At the highest level the concerns about allowing such "rehoming" of
   packet flows can be called "redirection attacks"; the ability to
   cause packets to be sent to a place that isn't tied to the upper
   layer protocol's notion of the peer.  These attacks pose threats
   against confidentiality, integrity, and availability.  That is, an
   attacker might learn the contents of a particular flow by redirecting
   it to a location where the attacker has a packet recorder.  If,
   instead of a recorder, the attacker changes the packets and then
   forwards them to the ultimate destination, the integrity of the data
   stream would be compromised.  Finally, the attacker can simply use
   the redirection of a flow as a denial of service attack.

   This document has been developed while considering multihoming
   solutions architected around a separation of network identity and
   network location.  However, this separation is not a requirement for
   all threats, so this taxonomy may also apply to other approaches.
   This document is not intended to examine any single proposed
   solution.  Rather, it is intended as an aid to discussion and
   evaluation of proposed solutions.  By cataloging known threats, we
   can help to ensure that all proposals deal with all of the available

1.1.  Assumptions

   This threat analysis doesn't assume that security has been applied
   other security relevant parts of the Internet, such as DNS and
   routing protocols, but it does assume that at some point in time at
   least parts of the Internet will be operating with security for such
   key infrastructure.  With that assumption it then becomes important
   that a multihoming solution would not, at that point in time, become
   the weakest link.  This is the case even if, for instance, insecure
   DNS might be the weakest link today.

   This document doesn't assume that the application protocols are
   protected by strong security today or in the future.  However, it is
   still useful to assume that the application protocols which care
   about integrity and/or confidentiality apply the relevant end-to-end
   security measures, such as IPsec or TLS.

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                            [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   For simplicity we assume that an on-path attacker can see packets,
   modify packets and send them out, and block packets from being
   delivered.  This is a simplification because there might exist ways,
   for instance monitoring capability in switches, which allow
   authenticated and authorized users to observe packets without being
   able to send or block the packets.

   We assume that an off-path attacker can neither see packets between
   the peers (for which it is not on the path) nor block them from being
   delivered.  Off-path attackers can in general send packets with
   arbitrary IP source addresses and content, but such packets might be
   blocked if ingress filtering [INGRESS] is applied.  Thus it is
   important to look at the multihoming impact on security both in the
   presence and absence of ingress filtering.


      upper layer protocol (ULP)
                  - a protocol layer immediately above IP.  Examples are
                    transport protocols such as TCP and UDP, control
                    protocols such as ICMP, routing protocols such as
                    OSPF, and Internet or lower-layer protocols being
                    "tunneled" over (i.e., encapsulated in) IP such as
                    IPX, AppleTalk, or IP itself.

      interface   - a node's attachment to a link.

      address     - an IP layer name that contains both topological
                    significance and acts as a unique identifier for an

      locator     - an IP layer topological name for an interface or a
                    set of interfaces.

      identifier  - an IP layer identifier for an IP layer endpoint
                    (stack name in [NSRG]).  The transport endpoint is a
                    function of the transport protocol and would
                    typically include the IP identifier plus a port

      address field
                  - the source and destination address fields in the
                    IPv6 header.  As IPv6 is currently specified this
                    fields carry "addresses".  If identifiers and
                    locators are separated these fields will contain

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                            [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

      FQDN        - Fully Qualified Domain Name


   The two interesting aspects of security for multihoming solutions are
   the assumptions made by the applications and upper layer protocols
   about the identifiers that they see on one hand, and the existing
   abilities to perform today various attacks related to the
   identity/location relationship, on the other hand.

3.1.  Application Assumptions

   In the Internet today, the initiating part of applications either
   starts with a FQDN, which it looks up in the DNS, or already has an
   IP address from somewhere.  For the FQDN to IP address lookup the
   application effectively places trust in the DNS.  Once it has the IP
   address, the application places trust in the routing system
   delivering packets to that address.  Applications that use security
   mechanisms, such as IPsec or TLS, with mutual authentication have the
   ability to "bind" the FQDN to the cryptographic keying material thus
   compromising the DNS and/or the routing system can at worst cause the
   packets to be dropped or delivered to an entity which does not posses
   the keying material.

   At the responding (non-initiating) end of communication today, we
   find applications that fall into approximately five classes with
   respect to their security requirements.

   The first class is the set of public content servers.  These systems
   provide data to any and all systems and are not particularly
   concerned with confidentiality, as they make their content available
   to all.  However, they are interested in data integrity and denial of
   service attacks.  Having someone manipulate the results of a search
   engine, for example, or prevent certain systems from reaching a
   search engine would be a serious security issue.

   The second class of applications use existing IP source addresses
   from outside of their immediate local site as a means of
   authentication without any form of verification.  Today, with source

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                            [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   IP address spoofing and TCP sequence number guessing as rampant
   attacks, such applications are effectively opening themselves for
   public connectivity and are reliant on other systems, such as
   firewalls, for overall security.  We do not consider this class of
   systems in this document.

   The third class of applications receive existing IP source addresses,
   but attempt some verification using the DNS, effectively using the
   FQDN for access control. (This is typically done by performing a
   reverse lookup from the IP address followed by a forward lookup and
   verifying that the IP address matches one of the addresses returned
   from the forward lookup.)  These applications are already subject to
   a number of attacks using techniques like source address spoofing and
   TCP sequence number guessing since an attacker, knowing this is the
   case, can simply create a DoS attack using a forged source address
   that has authentic DNS records.  In general this class of
   applications is strongly discouraged, but it is probably important
   that a multihoming solution doesn't introduce any new and easier ways
   to perform such attacks.

   The fourth class of applications use cryptographic security
   techniques to provide both a strong identity for the peer and data
   integrity with or without confidentiality.  Such systems are still
   potentially vulnerable to denial of service attacks that could be
   introduced by a multihoming solution.

   Finally, the fifth class of applications use cryptographic security
   techniques but without strong identity (such as opportunistic IPsec).
   Thus data integrity with or without confidentiality is provided when
   communicating with an unknown/unauthenticated principal.  Just like
   the first category above such applications can't perform access
   control since they do not know the identity of the peer.  [TBD: Does
   one-way authentication, without mutual authentication, add a
   different class of applications?]

   The requirement for a multihoming solution is that security be no
   worse than it is today in all situations.  Thus, mechanisms that
   provide confidentiality, integrity, or authentication today should
   continue to provide these properties in a multihomed environment.

3.2.  Redirection Attacks Today

   This section enumerates some of the redirection attacks that are
   possible in today's Internet.

   If routing can be compromised, packets for any destination can be
   redirected to any location.  This can be done by injecting a long

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                            [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   prefix into global routing, thereby causing the longest match
   algorithm to deliver packets to the attacker.

   Similarly, if DNS can be compromised, and a change can be made to an
   advertised resource record to advertise a different IP address for a
   hostname, effectively taking over that hostname.  More detailed
   information about threats relating to DNS are in [DNS-THREATS].

   Any system that is along the path from the source to the destination
   host can be compromised and used to redirect traffic.  Systems may be
   added to the best path to accomplish this.  Further, even systems
   that are on multi-access links that do not provide security can also
   be used to redirect traffic off of the normal path.  For example, ARP
   and ND spoofing can be used to attract all traffic for the legitimate
   next hop across an Ethernet.  And since the vast majority of
   applications rely on DNS lookups, if DNSsec is not deployed, then
   attackers that are on the path between the host and the DNS servers
   can also cause redirection by modifying the responses from the DNS

   Finally, the hosts themselves that terminate the connection can also
   be compromised and can perform functions that were not intended by
   the end user.

   All of the above protocol attacks are the subject of ongoing work to
   secure them (DNSsec, security for BGP, Secure ND) and are not
   considered further within this document.  The goal for a multihoming
   solution is not to solve these attacks.  Rather, it is to avoid
   adding to this list of attacks.

3.3.  Packet Injection Attacks Today

   In today's Internet the upper-layer protocols, such as TCP and SCTP,
   which use IP, use the IP addresses as the identifiers for the
   communication.  In the absence of ingress filtering [INGRESS] the IP
   layer allows the sender to use an arbitrary source address, thus the
   ULPs need some protection against malicious senders injecting bogus
   packets into the packet stream between two communicating peers.  If
   this protection can be circumvented, then it is possible for an
   attacker to cause harm without necessarily needing to redirect the
   return packets.

   There are various level of protection in different ULPs.  For
   instance, in general TCP packets have to contain a sequence that
   falls in the receiver's window to be accepted.  If the TCP initial
   sequence numbers are random then it is relatively hard for an off-
   path attacker to guess the sequence number close enough for it to

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                            [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   belong to the window, and as result be able to inject a packet into
   an existing connection.  How hard this is depends on the size of the
   available window.  SCTP provides a stronger mechanism with the
   verification tag; an off-path attacker would need to guess this
   random 32-bit number.  Of course, IPsec provide cryptographically
   strong mechanisms which prevent attackers on or off path to inject
   packets once the security associations have been established.

   When ingress filtering is deployed between the potential attacker and
   the path between the communicating peers, it can prevent the attacker
   from using the peer's IP address as source.  In that case the packet
   injection will fail in today's Internet.

   We don't expect a multihoming solution improve the existing degree of
   prevention against packet injection.  However, it is necessary to
   look carefully whether a multihoming solution makes it easier for
   attackers to inject packets since the desire to have the peer be
   present at multiple locators, and perhaps at a dynamic set of
   locators, can potentially result in solutions that, even in the
   presence of ingress filtering, make packet injection easier.

3.4.  Flooding Attacks Today

   In the Internet today there are several ways for an attacker to use a
   redirection mechanism to launch DoS attacks that can not easily be
   traced to the attacker.  An example of this is to use protocols which
   cause reflection with or without amplification [PAXSON01].

   Reflection without amplification can be accomplished by an attacker
   sending a TCP SYN packet to a well-known server with a spoofed source
   address; the resulting TCP SYN ACK packet will be sent to the spoofed
   source address.

   Devices on the path between two communicating entities can also
   launch DoS attacks.  While such attacks might not be interesting
   today, it is necessary to understand them better in order to
   determine whether a multihoming solution might enables new types of
   DoS attacks.

   For example, today if A is communicating with B, then A can try to
   overload the path from B to A.  If TCP is used A could do this by
   sending ACK packets for data that it has not yet received (but it
   suspects B has already sent) so that B would send at a rate that
   would cause persistent congestion on the path towards A.  Such an
   attack would seem self-destructive since A would only make its own
   corner of the network suffer by overloading the path from the
   Internet towards A.

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                            [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   A more interesting case is if A is communicating with B and X is on
   the path between A and B, then X might be able to fool B to send
   packets towards A at a rate that is faster than A (and the path
   between A and X) can handle.  For instance, if TCP is used then X can
   craft TCP ACK packets claiming to come from A to cause B to use a
   congestion window that is large enough to potentially cause
   persistent congestion towards A.  Furthermore, if X can suppress the
   packets from A to B it can also prevent A from sending any explicit
   "slow down" packets to B.  Similar attacks can presumably be launched
   using protocols that carry streaming media by forging such a
   protocol's notion of acknowledgment and feedback.

   An attribute of this type of attack is that A will simply think that
   B is faulty since its flow and congestion control mechanisms don't
   seem to be working.  Detecting that the stream of ACK packets is
   generated from X and not from A might be challenging, since the rate
   of ACK packets might be relatively low.  This type of attack might
   not be common today because, in the presence of ingress filtering, it
   requires that X remain on the path in order to sustain the DoS
   attack.  And in the absence of ingress filtering an attacker can
   launch simpler DoS attacks by spoofing its source IP address.

   The danger is that the addition of multihoming redirection mechanisms
   might potentially remove the constraint that the attacker remain on
   the path.  And with the current, no-multihoming support, using end-
   to-end strong security at a protocol level at (or below) this "ACK"
   processing would prevent this type of attack.  But if a multihoming
   solution is provided underneath IPsec that prevention mechanism would
   potentially not exist.

   Thus the challenge for multihoming solutions is to not create
   additional types of attacks in this area, or make existing types of
   attacks significantly easier.


   This section documents the additional redirection attacks that have
   been discovered that result from an architecture where hosts can
   change their topological connection to the network in the middle of a
   transport session without interruption.  This discussion is again
   framed in the context of independent host identifiers and topological
   locators.  Some of these attacks may not be applicable if traditional
   addresses are used.  This section assumes that each host has multiple

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                            [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   locators and that there is some mechanism for determining the
   locators for a correspondent host.  We do not assume anything about
   the properties of these mechanisms.  Instead, this list will serve to
   help us derive the properties of these mechanisms that will be
   necessary to prevent these redirection attacks.

   Depending on the purpose of the redirection attack we separate the
   attacks into several different types.

4.1.  Cause Packets to be Sent to the Attacker

   An attacker might want to receive the flow of packets, for instance
   to be able to inspect and/or modify the payload or to be able to
   apply cryptographic analysis to cryptographically protected payload,
   using redirection attacks.

4.1.1.  Once Packets are Flowing

   This might be viewed as the "classic" redirection attack.

   While A and B are communicating X might send packets to B and claim:
   "Hi, I'm A, send my packets to my new location."  where the location
   is really X's location.

   "Standard" solutions to this include requiring the host requesting
   redirection somehow be verified to be the same host as the initial
   host to establish communication.  However, the burdens of such
   verification must not be onerous, or the redirection requests
   themselves can be used as a DoS attack.

   To prevent this type of attack, a solution would need some mechanism
   that B can use to verify whether a locator belongs to A before B
   starts using that locator, and be able to do this when multiple
   locators are assigned to A.

4.1.2.  Premeditated Redirection

   This is a variant of the above where the attacker "installs" itself
   before communication starts.

   For example, if the attacker X can predict that A and B will
   communicate in the (near) future, then the attacker can tell B: "Hi,
   I'm A and I'm at this location".  When A later tries to communicate
   with B, will B believe it is really A?

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   If the solution to the classic redirection attack is based on "prove
   you are the same as initially", then A will fail to prove this to B
   since X initiated communication.

   Depending on details that would be specific to a proposed solution,
   this type of attack could either cause redirection (so that the
   packets intended for A will be sent to X) or they could cause DoS
   (where A would fail to communicate with B since it can't prove it is
   the same host as X).

   To prevent this attack, the verification whether a locator belongs to
   the peer can not simply be based on the first peer that made contact.

4.1.3.  Using Replay Attacks

   While the multihoming problem doesn't inherently imply any
   topological movement it is useful to also consider the impact of site
   renumbering in combination with multihoming.  In that case the set of
   locators for a host will change each time its site renumbers and at
   some point in time after a renumbering event the old locator prefix
   might be reassigned to some other site.

   This potentially opens up the ability for an attacker to replay
   whatever protocol mechanism was used to inform a host of a peer's
   locators so that the host would incorrectly be lead to believe that
   the old locator (set) should be used even long after a renumbering
   event.  This is similar to the risk of replay of Binding Updates in
   [MIPv6] but the time constant is quite different; Mobile IPv6 might
   see movements every second while site renumbering followed by
   reassignment of the site locator prefix might be a matter of weeks or

   To prevent such replay attacks the protocol which is used to verify
   which locators can be used with a particular identifier needs some
   replay protection mechanism.

   Also, in this space one needs to be concerned about potential
   interaction between such replay protection and the administrative act
   of reassignment of a locator.  If the identifier and locator
   relationship is distributed across the network one would need to make
   sure that the old information has been completely purged from the
   network before any reassignment.  Note that this does not require an
   explicit mechanism.  This can instead be implemented by locator reuse
   policy and careful timeouts of locator information.

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

4.2.  Cause Packets to be Sent to a Black Hole

   This is also a variant of the classic redirection attack.  The
   difference is that the new location is a locator that is nonexistent
   or unreachable.  Thus the effect is that sending packets to the new
   locator causes the packets to be dropped by the network somewhere.

   One would expect that solutions which prevent the previous
   redirection attacks would prevent this attack as a side effect, but
   it makes sense to include this attack here for completeness.
   Mechanisms that prevented a redirection attack to the attacker should
   also prevent redirection to a black hole.

4.3.  Third Party Denial-of-Service Attacks

   An attacker can use the ability to perform redirection to cause
   overload on an unrelated third party.  For instance, if A and B are
   communicating then the attacker X might be able to convince A to send
   the packets intended for B to some third node C.  While this might
   seem harmless at first, since X could just flood C with packets
   directly, there are a few aspects of these attacks that cause

   The first is that the attacker might be able to completely hide its
   identity and location.  It might suffice for X to send and receive a
   few packets to A in order to perform the redirection, and A might not
   retain any state on who asked for the redirection to C's location.
   Even if A had retained such state, that state would probably not be
   easily available to C, thus C can't determine who was the attacker
   once C is being DoS'ed.

   The second concern is that with a direct DoS attack from X to C, the
   attacker is limited by the bandwidth of its own path towards C.  If
   the attacker can fool another host like A to redirect its traffic to
   C then the bandwidth is limited by the path from A towards C.  If A
   is a high-capacity Internet service and X has slow (e.g., dialup)
   connectivity this difference could be substantial.  Thus in effect
   this could be similar to packet amplifying reflectors in [PAXSON01].

   The third, and final concern, is that if an attacker only need a few
   packets to convince one host to flood a third party, then it wouldn't
   be hard for the attacker to convince lots of hosts to flood the same
   third party.  Thus this could be used for Distributed Denial-of-
   Service attacks.

   In today's Internet the ability to perform this type of attack is

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   quite limited.  In order for the attacker to initiate communication
   it will in most cases need to be able to receive some packets from
   the peer (the potential exception being combining this with TCP
   sequence number guessing type of techniques).  Furthermore, to the
   extent that parts of the Internet uses ingress filtering [INGRESS],
   even if the communication could be initiated it wouldn't be possible
   to sustain it by sending ACK packets with spoofed source addresses
   from an off-path attacker.

   If this type of attack can't be prevented there might be mitigation
   techniques that can be employed.  For instance, in the case of TCP it
   would help if TCP slow-start was triggered when the destination
   locator changes. (Folks might argue that, separately from security,
   this would be the correct action for congestion control since TCP
   might not have any congestion-relation information about the new path
   implied by the new locator).  Applying this technique to other ULPs
   which perform different forms of (TCP friendly) congestion control
   might be more difficult since the lower layers generally lack an API
   to provide such information to the ULPs.  Also, for other protocols,
   this might be less beneficial, since other ULPs might not adapt
   rapidly and could view the suggestion of congestion as being more
   severe than a simple deficit of congestion information.

4.3.1.  Basic Third Party DoS

   Assume that X is on a slow link anywhere in the Internet.  B is on a
   fast link (gigabits; e.g. a media server) and A is the victim.

   X could flood A directly but is limited by its low bandwidth.  If X
   can establish communication with B, ask B to send it a high-speed
   media stream, then X can presumably fake out the
   "acknowledgments/feedback" needed for B to blast out packets at full
   speed.  So far this only hurts X - and the path between X and the
   Internet.  But if X could also tell B "I'm at A's locator" then X has
   effectively used this redirection capability in multihoming to
   amplify its DoS capability, which would be a source of concern.

   One could envision rather simple techniques to prevent such attacks.
   For instance, before sending to a new peer locator perform a clear
   text exchange with the claimed new locator of the form "Are you X?"
   resulting in "Yes, I'm X.".  This would suffice for the simplest of
   attacks.  However, as we will see below, more sophisticated attacks
   are possible.

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

4.3.2.  Third Party DoS with On-Path Help

   The scenario is as above but in addition the attacker X has a friend
   Y on the path between A and B:

       -----        -----        -----
       | A |--------| Y |--------| B |
       -----        -----        -----
                        | X |

   With the simple solution suggested in the previous section, all Y
   might need to do is to fake a response to the "Are you X?" packet,
   and after that point in time Y might not be needed; X could
   potentially sustain the data flow towards A by generating the ACK
   packets.  Thus it would be even harder to detect the existence of Y.

   Furthermore, if X is not the actual end system but an attacker
   between some node C and B, then X can claim to be C, and no finger
   can be pointed at X either:

       -----        -----        -----
       | A |--------| Y |--------| B |
       -----        -----        -----
            -----       -----
            | C |-------| X |
            -----       -----

   Thus with two attackers on different paths, there might be no trace
   of who did the redirection to the 3rd party once the redirection has
   taken place.

   A specific case of this is when X=Y, and X is located on the same LAN
   as B.

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   A potential way to make such attacks harder would be to use the last
   received (and verified) source locator as the destination locator.
   That way when X sends the ACK packets (whether it claims to be X or
   C) the result would be that the packet flow from B would switch back
   towards X/C, which would result in an attack similar to what can be
   performed in today's Internet.

   Another way that a multihoming solution might address this is to
   ensure that B will only accept locators that can be authenticated to
   be synonymous with the original correspondent.  It must be possible
   to securely ensure that these locators form an equivalence class.  So
   in the first example, not only does X need to assert that it is A,
   but A needs to assert that it is X.

4.4.  Accepting Packets from Unknown Locators

   The multihoming solution space does not only affect the destination
   of packets; it also raises the question from which sources packets
   should be accepted.  It is possible to build a multihoming solution
   that allows traffic to be recognized as coming from the same peer
   even if there is a previously unknown locator present in the source
   address field.  The question is whether we want to allow packets from
   unverified sources to be passed on to upper layer protocols.

   In the current Internet, an attacker can't inject packets with
   arbitrary source addresses into a session if there is ingress
   filtering present, so allowing packets with unverified sources in a
   multihoming solution would fail our "no worse than what we have now"
   litmus test.  However, given that ingress filtering deployment is far
   from universal and ingress filtering typically wouldn't prevent
   spoofing of addresses in the same subnet, requiring rejecting packets
   from unverified locators might be too stringent.  A factor to take
   into account to determine the "requirement level" for this is that
   when IPsec is used on top of the multihoming solution, then IPsec
   will reject such spoofed packets.  (Note that this is different than
   in the redirection attack cases where even with IPsec an attacker
   could potentially cause a DoS attack.)

   There might also be a middle ground where arbitrary attackers are
   prevented from injecting packets by using the SCTP verification tag
   type of approach [SCTP]. (This is a clear-text tag which is sent to
   the peer which the peer is expected to include in each subsequent
   packet.)  Such an approach doesn't prevent packet injection from on-
   path attackers (since they can observe the verification tag), but
   neither does ingress filtering.

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004


   Different multihoming solutions might approach the problem at
   different layers in the protocol stack.  For instance, there has been
   proposals on a shim layer inside IP as well as transport layer
   approaches.  The former would have the capability to redirect an IP
   address while the latter might be constrained to only redirect a
   single transport connection.  This difference might be important when
   it comes to understanding the security impact.

   For instance, premeditated attacks might have quite different impact
   in the two cases.  In an IP-based multihoming solution a successful
   premeditated redirection could be due to the attacker connecting to a
   server and claiming to be 'A' which would result in the server
   retaining some state about 'A' which it received from the attacker.
   Later, when the real 'A' tries to connect to the server, the
   existence of this state might mean that 'A' fails to communicate, or
   that its packets are sent to the attacker.  But if the same scenario
   is applied to a transport-layer approach then the state created due
   to the attacker would perhaps be limited to the existing transport
   connection.  Thus while this might prevent the real 'A' from
   connecting to the server while the attacker is connected (if they
   happen to use the same transport port number) most likely it would
   not affect 'A's ability to connect after the attacker has

   A particular aspect of the granularity question is the direction
   question; will the created state be used for communication in the
   reverse direction from the direction when it was created?  For
   instance, if the attacker 'X' suspects that 'A' will connect to 'B'
   in the near future, can X connect to A and claim to be B and have
   that later make A connect to the attacker instead of to the real B?

   Note that transport layer approaches are limited to the set of ULPs
   that the implementation makes aware of multihoming.  In many cases
   there would be ULPs that are unknown to the multihoming capability of
   the system, such as applications built on top of UDP.  To understand
   the impact of the granularity question on the security, one would
   also need to understand how such applications/ULPs would be handled.

   A property of transport granularity is that the amount of work
   performed by a legitimate host is proportional to the number of
   transport connections it creates that uses the multihoming support,
   since each such connection would require some multihoming signaling.
   And the same is true for the attacker.  This means that an attacker
   could presumably do a premeditated attack for all TCP connections to
   port 80 from A to B, by setting up 65,536 (for all TCP source port
   numbers) to the server B and causing B to think those connections

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 16]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   should be directed to the attacker and keeping those TCP connections
   open.  Any attempt to make legitimate communication more efficient,
   e.g., by being able to signal for multiple transport connections at a
   time, would provide as much relative benefit for an attacker as the
   legitimate hosts.

      Discussion: Perhaps the key issue is not about the granularity,
      but about the lifetime of the state that is created?  In a
      transport-layer approach the multihoming state would presumably be
      destroyed when the transport state is deleted as part of closing
      the connection.  But an IP-layer approach would have to rely on
      some timeout or garbage collection mechanisms perhaps combined
      with some new explicit signally to remove the multihoming state.
      The coupling between the connection state and multihoming state in
      the transport-layer approach might make it more expensive for the
      attacker, since it needs to keep the connections open.  Is this
      the case?

   In summary, there are issues we don't yet understand well about
   granularity and reuse of the multihoming state.


   In the case when nothing moves around we have a reasonable
   understanding of the security requirements.  Something that is on the
   path can be a MiTM in today's Internet and a multihoming solution
   doesn't need to make that aspect any more secure.

   But it is more difficult to understand the requirements when hosts
   are moving around.  For instance, a host might be on the path for a
   short moment in time by driving by an 802.11 hotspot.  Would we or
   would we not be concerned if such a drive-by (which many call a
   "time-shifting" attack) would result in the temporarily on-path host
   being able to act as a MiTM for future communication?  Depending on
   the solution this might be possible by the attacker causing
   multihoming state to be created in various peer hosts while the
   attacker was on the path, and that state remaining in the peers for
   some time.

   The answer to this question doesn't seem to be obvious even in the
   absence of any new multihoming support.  We don't have much
   experience with hosts moving around that are able to attack things as
   they move.  In Mobile IPv6 [MIPv6] a conservative approach was taken

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 17]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   which limits the effect of such drive-by attacks to the maximum
   lifetime of the binding, which is set to a few minutes.

   With multihoming support the issue gets a bit more complicated
   because we explicitly want to allow a host to be present at multiple
   locators at the same time, thus there might be a need to distinguish
   between the host moving between different locators, and the host
   sending packets with different source locators because it is present
   at multiple locators without any topological movement.

   Note that the multihoming solutions that have been discussed range
   from such drive-by's being impossible (for instance, due to a strong
   binding to a separate identifier as in HIP, or due to reliance on the
   relative security of the DNS for forward plus reverse lookups in
   NOID), to systems that are first-come/first-serve (WIMP being an
   example with a separate ID space, a MAST approach with a PBK being an
   example without a separate ID space) that allow the first host which
   is using an ID/address to claim that without any time limit.


   The protocol mechanisms added as part of a multihoming solution
   shouldn't introduce any new DoS in the mechanisms themselves.  In
   particular, care must be taken not to:

    - create state on the first packet in an exchange, since that could
      result in state consumption attacks similar to the TCP SYN
      flooding attack.

    - perform much work on the first packet in an exchange (such as
      expensive verification)

   There is a potential chicken-and-egg problem here, because
   potentially one would want to avoid doing work or creating state
   until the peer has been verified, but verification will probably need
   some state and some work to be done.

   A possible approach that solutions might investigate is to defer
   verification until there appears to be two different hosts (or two
   different locators for the same host) that want to use the same

   Another possible approach is to first establish communications, and

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 18]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   then perform verification in parallel with normal data transfers.
   Redirection would only be permitted after verification was complete,
   but prior to that event, data could transfer in a normal, non-
   multihomed manner.

   Finally, the new protocol mechanisms should be protected against
   spoofed packets, at least from off-path sources, and replayed


   While introducing identifiers can be helpful by providing ways to
   identify hosts across events when its IP address(es) might change,
   there is a risk that such mechanisms can be abused to track the
   identity of the host over long periods of time.  Designers of
   solutions to multihoming need to be aware of this concern.

   A solution could address this for instance by allowing each host to
   have multiple identifiers at the same time and perhaps even changing
   the set of identifiers that are used over time.  Such an approach
   could be analogous to what is done for IPv6 addresses in [RFC3041].


   In section 3 we discussed existing protocol-based redirection
   attacks.  But there are also non-protocol redirection attacks.  An
   attacker which can gain physical access to one of

    - The copper/fiber somewhere in the path.

    - A router or L2 device in the path.

    - One of the end systems

   can also redirect packets.  This could be possible for instance by
   physical break-ins or by bribing staff that have access to the
   physical infrastructure.  Such attacks are out of scope for this
   discussion, but are worth to keep in mind when looking at the cost

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 19]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   for an attacker to exploit any protocol-based attacks against
   multihoming solutions; making protocol-based attacks much more
   expensive to launch than break-ins/bribery type of attacks might be


   This document is a product of a MULTI6 design team consisting of (in
   alphabetical order):  Iljitsch van Beijnum, Steve Bellovin, Brian
   Carpenter, Mike O'Dell, Sean Doran, Dave Katz, Tony Li, Erik
   Nordmark, and Pekka Savola.

   Much of the awareness of these threats come from the work on Mobile
   IPv6 [MIPv6, NIKANDER03, AURA02].

   Masataka Ohta brought up privacy concern related to stable
   identifiers.  The suggestion to discuss transport versus IP
   granularity was contributed by Marcelo Bagnulo.


11.1.  Normative References

11.2.  Informative References

     [NSRG] Lear, E., and R. Droms, "What's In A Name: Thoughts from the
             NSRG", draft-irtf-nsrg-report-09.txt (work in progress),
             March 2003.

     [MIPv6] Johnson, D., C. Perkins, and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
             IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt (work in progress),
             June 2003.

     [AURA02] Aura, T. and J. Arkko, "MIPv6 BU Attacks and Defenses",
             draft-aura-mipv6-bu-attacks-01 (work in progress), March

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 20]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

     [NIKANDER03] Nikander, P., T. Aura, J. Arkko, G. Montenegro, and E.
             Nordmark, "Mobile IP version 6 Route Optimization Security
             Design Background", draft-nikander-mobileip-v6-ro-sec-01
             (work in progress), June 2003.

     [PAXSON01] V. Paxson, "An Analysis of Using Reflectors for
             Distributed Denial-of-Service Attacks", Computer
             Communication Review 31(3), July 2001.

     [INGRESS] Ferguson P., and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
             Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
             Address Spoofing", RFC 2827, May 2000.

     [SCTP] R. Stewart, Q. Xie, K.  Morneault, C. Sharp, H.
             Schwarzbauer, T. Taylor, I. Rytina, M. Kalla, L. Zhang, and
             V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
             2960, October 2000.

     [ADDR-ARCH] S. Deering, R. Hinden, Editors, "IP Version 6
             Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.

     [IPv6] S. Deering, R. Hinden, Editors, "Internet Protocol, Version
             6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2461.

     [IPv6-SA] R. Atkinson.  "Security Architecture for the Internet
             Protocol".  RFC 2401, November 1998.

     [IPv6-AUTH] R. Atkinson.  "IP Authentication Header", RFC 2402,
             November 1998.

     [IPv6-ESP] R. Atkinson.  "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
             RFC 2406, November 1998.

     [RFC3041] T. Narten and Draves, R, "Privacy Extensions for
             Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", January 2001.

     [DNS-THREATS] Derek Atkins, Rob Austein, "Threat Analysis Of The
             Domain Name System", 5-Apr-04, <draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-

     [PBK] Scott Bradner, Allison Mankin, Jeffrey Schiller, "A Framework
             for Purpose-Built Keys (PBK)", 9-Jun-03, <draft-bradner-

     [NOID] Erik Nordmark, "Multihoming without IP Identifiers", Oct 27,
             2003, <draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-01.txt>


draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 21]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

             (MAST): AN EXTENDED PROPOSAL", September 2003, <draft-

     [HIP] Pekka Nikander, "Considerations on HIP based IPv6 multi-
             homing", 23-Jan-04, <draft-nikander-multi6-hip-00.txt>

     [WIMP] Jukka Ylitalo, 13-Feb-04, "Weak Identifier Multihoming
             Protocol (WIMP)", <draft-ylitalo-multi6-wimp-00.txt>

     [CBHI] Iljitsch van Beijnum, "Crypto Based Host Identifiers", 2-
             Feb-04, <draft-van-beijnum-multi6-cbhi-00.txt>


     Erik Nordmark                Tony Li
     Sun Microsystems, Inc.       Procket Networks, Inc.
     17 Network Circle            1110 Cadillac Ct.
     Mountain View, CA            Milpitas, CA
     USA                          USA

     phone: +1 650 786 2921       phone: +1 408 635 7903
     fax:   +1 650 786 5896       fax:   +1 408 635 7522
     email: email:


   The following changes have been made since version 00 of the draft.

    o Added reference to [DNS-THREATS] and clarified that attackers on
      the path between the host and the DNS servers can redirect traffic

    o Added a section on existing packet injection attacks to talk about
      TCP sequence number guessing etc.

    o Clarified ingress filtering relationship in section on today's
      flooding attacks.

    o Added a new section on granularity to list some issues about
      transport-level versus IP-level approaches and what we understand
      about the differences in security.  This is still very much a work
      in progress.

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 22]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

    o Added a new section on movement to discuss how things change when
      hosts move around the network.  This is still very much a work in

    o Added Appendix B - but this should probably be moved to a
      different document to keep this document focused on the threats.

   When looking at the proposals that have been made for multihoming
   solutions and the above threats it seems like there are two separable
   aspects of handling the redirection threats:

    - Redirection of existing communication

    - Redirection of an identity before any communication

   The former can be addressed by a large class of approaches which are
   based on setting up some form of security material at the beginning
   of communication, and later using the existence of that material for
   one end to prove to the other that it remains the same.  An example
   of this is Purpose Built Keys [PBK].  One can envision different
   approaches for such schemes with different complexity, performance,
   and resulting security such as anonymous Diffie-Hellman exchange, the
   reverse hash chains presented in [WIMP], or even a clear-text token
   exchanged at the initial communication.

   However, the mechanisms for addressing the latter issue can be quite
   different.  One way to prevent premeditated redirection is to simply
   not introduce a new identifier name space but instead rely on
   existing name space(s) as in [NOID]; in this case premeditated
   redirection is as easy or as hard as redirecting an IP address today.
   Essentially this relies on the return-routability check associated
   with a roundtrip of communication which verifies that the routing
   system delivers packets to the IP address in question.

   Alternatively, one can use the crypto-based identifiers such as in
   [HIP] or crypto-generated addresses as in [CBHI], which both rely on
   public-key crypto, to prevent premeditated attacks.  In some cases it
   is also possible to avoid the problem by having (one end of the
   communication) use ephemeral identifiers as in [WIMP].  This avoids
   premeditated redirection by detecting that some other entity is using
   the same identifier at the peer and switching to use another
   ephemeral ID.

   A solution would need to combine elements which provide protection

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 23]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004

   against both premeditated and on-going communication redirection.
   This can be done in several ways, and the current set of proposals do
   not appear to contain all useful combinations.  For instance, the HIP
   CBID property could be used to prevent premeditated attacks while the
   WIMP hash chains could be used to prevent on-going redirection.  And
   there are probably other interesting combinations.

   A related, but perhaps separate aspect, is whether the solution
   provides for protection against Man-in-The-Middle attacks with on-
   path attackers.  Some schemes, such as [HIP] and [NOID] do, but given
   that an on-path attacker can see and modify the data traffic whether
   or not it can modify the multihoming signaling, this level of
   protection seems like overkill.  Protecting against on-path MiTM for
   the data traffic can be done separately using IPsec, TLS, etc.

   Finally, preventing third party DoS attacks is conceptually simpler;
   it would suffice to somehow verify that the peer is indeed reachable
   at the new locator before sending a large number of packets to that

   Full Copyright Statement

      Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

      This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
      others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
      or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
      and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
      kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
      included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
      document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
      the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
      Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
      developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
      copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
      followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

      The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
      revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

      This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 24]

INTERNET-DRAFT   Threats to IPv6 multihoming solutions      June 1, 2004


      Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
      Internet Society.

draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01.txt                           [Page 25]